Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

This member contributed to:

    • Dear Christina Blank, dear all

      Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the RAI Zero Draft. Please find our comments and observations below:

      1. The fundamental limitation of the RAI is that they are voluntary.
      2. The RAI build on FAO’s definition of “food security”. The more fundamental critique of the “food sovereignty” school of thought are not really taken into consideration.
      3. The RAI lack a clear definition of “Investments”. Nevertheless the underlying understanding of “investments” in most parts of the text are “financial investments”. I think this is a limitation as it undervalues the role of small scale farmers who usually rather invest labour, skills and knowledge than capital. I therefore suggest to add a definition of “investment” that includes knowledge, skills, labour and capital.
      4. The understanding of the Civil Society is limited to its “watchdog function”. But the civil society is a development actor itself and an investor too. For example community based organisations (e.g. running a seed bank), producer cooperatives and their umbrella organisations are development actors and not only their to defend the interests of their constituencies. (this refers to principle 4, last para). My recommendation would be to separate the strange group of “others” namely “Research and educational institutions, CSO, Intergovernmental and regional organisations and bilateral donors and foundations” and keep the CSO as an own independent actor. Their role is NOT only “complementary” as mentioned at the end of Principle 4.
      5. The role of consumers and their organisations is undervalued. Consumer can and should demand for a responsible behaviour of producers and investors. Now consumers are mentioned at the beginning only (p 2., top, last bullet point) where “communities, consumers and food insecure people” are thrown into one strange pot.
      6. Post-harvest and food loss are now mentioned in principle 3 which is the principle addressing “ecological concerns” (p.5, application, first bullet point). To my mind this aspect should go to principle 1 and deserves an own bullet point.
      7. The recognition of the value of indigenous knowledge is now mentioned in principle 3 only while it is important for all principles. This has to do with the missing definition of “investments”. I would include it there.

      Sincere regards,

      Bernd Steimann, Development Policy Coordinator, HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation

      Peter Schmidt, Co-Head Advisory Services, HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation